The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Popular Fictions Series) [Paperback]

Barbara Creed (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0415052599 | ISBN-13: 978-0415052597 | Publication Date: November 15, 1993

In almost all critical writings on the horror film, woman is conceptualised only as victim. In The Monstrous-Feminine Barbara Creed challenges this patriarchal view by arguing that the prototype of all definitions of the monstrous is the female reproductive body.
With close reference to a number of classic horror films including the Alien trilogy, The Exorcist and Psycho, Creed analyses the seven `faces' of the monstrous-feminine: archaic mother, monstrous womb, vampire, witch, possessed body, monstrous mother and castrator. Her argument that man fears woman as castrator, rather than as castrated, questions not only Freudian theories of sexual difference but existing theories of spectatorship and fetishism, providing a provocative re-reading of classical and contemporary film and theoretical texts.

Editorial Reviews

Review

By reinstating the repressed mother and femme castratice in classic Freudian theory, and by extending Julia Kristeva's discussion of horror and abjection to fresh critical objects, Barbara Creed accessibly and convincingly demonstrates the relevance and productivity of psychoanalytic theory for cultural analysis.
–Annette Kuhn, University of Glasgow

A substantial contribution to knowledge of the horror film . . . the first study to concentrate specifically on the monstrous-feminine.
–E. Ann Kaplan

Witty, succinct, a pleasure to read. The critique of Freudian theory comprises a total re-conceptualization of the status of the feminine within psychoanalytic debate.
–Sneja Gunew

Product Details

• Paperback: 192 pages
• Publisher: Routledge (November 15, 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0415052599
• ISBN-13: 978-0415052597
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #202,037 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An intriguing look at horror film, April 3, 2000

By 

"nobodydances" - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Popular Fictions) (Hardcover)

Those who dislike psychoanalytic interpretations beware! This book is full of them (even one about Little Red Riding Hood!) I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do find them exceptionally fascinating. The readings of Psycho and Carrie are particularly enlightening, as well as that of Jaws (very heavy on the Freudian castration anxiety angle... but now when I watch the film I can't abide by any other interpretation).

1.0 out of 5 stars No more isms to "explain" monsters, please., January 13, 2012

By 

J - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Popular Fictions Series) (Paperback)

Primates spent millions of years as prey to lions, alligators and bears. Our psyche is wired to fear the attacks of these predators. They are the protoype of the monster. It's their hungry maws and slashing claws that we humans instinctively and symbolically fear.

14 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars And this is important because..., March 23, 2004

By 

N. P. Stathoulopoulos "nick9155" (Brooklyn, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Popular Fictions) (Hardcover)

Many of the interpretations in this book are indeed interesting, but that's largely it. Using psychoanalysis on horror films can produce fascinating theories on certain types of films and on specific films (Jaws, Carrie, Psycho), sure, but in the end it doesn't prove a thing, and it's a largely isolated fascination. Psychoanalytic film theory has been pretty much called out by post-theorists like David Bordwell who want to see some kind of evidence. Creed's book is over a decade old now, and theorists like Bordwell state the ball is in the court of the psychoanalysts of film to provide a more substantial theory with empirical evidence to back up these theories.

There is probably something to be learned from studying film in conjunction with psychology. As for psychoanalysis, in books like this, one is reminded how much of the work simply wallows in itself. While the insulated core of film 'theorists' sit in universities and philosophize, the subject has stagnated and has functionally moved nowhere. It's a classic academic construct that succeeds mainly in distinguishing the professors. Given that film is such a broad and popular medium (and to study horror films, no less) it's a shame that some of this work can't be qualified or introduced to 'the masses' who watch these films regularly.

Within film studies, there are many who don't delve into theory, and for good reason. It is largely useless. Even when there are valid points to be made, the work settles into ornate language, as if the only way to express obvious assertions and be taken seriously is to dress it up for the academy. Rarely is any useful evidence offered on how your mind reacts to what you're seeing on the screen and how you put together the references conscioulsy or unconsciously. Too much of the work reeks of elite intellectuallism, a competition to ensure the most impressive terms are invented for unproveable assertions about the beloved medium. To sit around and talk about vaginal representations in Alien and Jaws--not to say there isn't something there if you look at these films closely--with no worry about having to actually prove anything takes a lot of training.

What's most troubling in work like this is the application of constructs like Lacanian psychoanalysis (stemming from seminal Laura Mulvey works) and other debunked theories. The social sciences has a habit of distinguishing works that are based on left-behind theories, something hard sciences simply cannot do seriously. Recommended if you really want to delve into this niche market in the field.